The reason meta-tags are a problem is that they do not describe the content of the question. They describe some other aspect of the question, like the author’s skill level, or the author’s motivation for asking it, or generally what “kind” of question it is (poll, how-to, etc.).
It's this last idea that tipped me off to the possibility that we were looking at a meta tag: reality check is a kind of question, but does not describe the content of the question. Now, the article goes on to list two tests for metaness of tags. First:
- If the tag can’t work as the only tag on a question, it’s probably a meta-tag. Every tag you use should be able to work, more or less, as the only tag on a question. Meta-tags, like [beginner], [subjective], and [best-practices], are useless by themselves — they tell you nothing at all about the content of the question (in addition to a system tag, .
I'm pretty positive that reality-check fails this test, again, because it doesn't describe the content of the question. A reality check question must have other tags describing the content we are supposed to be reality checking (in addition to a system tag, see Is the Only-Tag Test for meta-tag-ness broken here?).
The second test:
I'm not sure it fails this particular test. 8 out of the 9 questions asked do seem to use the tag in a manner consistent with its description. Only one question uses it in a "am I understanding this right?" kind of way.
So I'm not sure about test two, but I am pretty darn certain that this tag fails test one. It definitely cannot be the only tag on a question, and it just describes a question type, rather than describing the content the question concerns.
Should we burninate reality-check?